IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ecinnt/v25y2016i8p821-851.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation and imitation as an interactive process

Author

Listed:
  • Pasquale L. Scandizzo
  • Marco Ventura

Abstract

This article deals with the problem of the coexistence of innovators and imitators in a competitive market. The study proposes a model of innovation and diffusion of productive knowledge as an interactive process between innovators and imitators under conditions of dynamic uncertainty. The process can be modelled as a Stackelberg game, where the innovator acts as a leader in choosing whether to share knowledge or set up private protection and the imitator as a follower in choosing when becoming active. Under these conditions, activation thresholds are derived for both innovators and imitators. If protection policies are effective, the imitator can be trapped into an inaction region by the innovator. Thus, there will be two regimes without and with diffusion, according to whether the inaction region is enacted or not. Under these conditions, discovery and diffusion appear to be dynamic complements, as a higher speed of activation of innovating firms is favoured by a higher level of imitation and a higher speed of activation of imitating firms is favoured by a higher level of discoveries. In order to explore some of the quantitative implications of these results, the paper also proposes an application of the model to four European countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Pasquale L. Scandizzo & Marco Ventura, 2016. "Innovation and imitation as an interactive process," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(8), pages 821-851, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ecinnt:v:25:y:2016:i:8:p:821-851
    DOI: 10.1080/10438599.2016.1164985
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10438599.2016.1164985
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10438599.2016.1164985?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Brander & Jean-Etienne De Bettignies, 2009. "Venture capital investment: the role of predator-prey dynamics with learning by doing," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 1-19.
    2. Judd, Kenneth L., 1985. "The law of large numbers with a continuum of IID random variables," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 19-25, February.
    3. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    4. Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    5. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    6. Ricardo J. Caballero & Adam B. Jaffe, 1993. "How High Are the Giants' Shoulders: An Empirical Assessment of Knowledge Spillovers and Creative Destruction in a Model of Economic Growth," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1993, Volume 8, pages 15-86, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Odin K. Knudsen & Pasquale L. Scandizzo, 2005. "Bringing Social Standards into Project Evaluation Under Dynamic Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 457-466, April.
    8. Chang, Byeong-Yun & Li, Xu & Kim, Yun Bae, 2014. "Performance comparison of two diffusion models in a saturated mobile phone market," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 41-48.
    9. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    10. Guidolin, Mariangela & Guseo, Renato, 2015. "Technological change in the U.S. music industry: Within-product, cross-product and churn effects between competing blockbusters," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 35-46.
    11. Cerqueti, Roy & Tramontana, Fabio & Ventura, Marco, 2015. "On the coexistence of innovators and imitators," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PB), pages 487-496.
    12. Mansfield, Edwin & Schwartz, Mark & Wagner, Samuel, 1981. "Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 907-918, December.
    13. Michele Boldrin & David Levine, 2002. "The Case Against Intellectual Property," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 209-212, May.
    14. Arijit Mukherjee & Achintya Ray, 2007. "Patents, imitation and welfare," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 227-236.
    15. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    16. Denicolo, Vincenzo & Franzoni, Luigi Alberto, 2003. "The contract theory of patents," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 365-380, December.
    17. DeBrock, Lawrence M, 1985. "Market Structure, Innovation, and Optimal Patent Life," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 223-244, April.
    18. Ginarte, Juan C. & Park, Walter G., 1997. "Determinants of patent rights: A cross-national study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 283-301, October.
    19. Tandon, Pankaj, 1982. "Optimal Patents with Compulsory Licensing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(3), pages 470-486, June.
    20. Grzegorz Pawlina & Peter M. Kort, 2006. "Real Options in an Asymmetric Duopoly: Who Benefits from Your Competitive Disadvantage?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 1-35, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Di Corato, Luca & Dosi, Cesare & Moretto, Michele, 2018. "Multidimensional auctions for long-term procurement contracts with early-exit options: The case of conservation contracts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 368-380.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    2. Sam Meng, 2019. "A New Design for the Patent System," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(3), pages 1204-1229, September.
    3. Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.
    4. Aoki, R. & Spiegel, Y., 1998. "Public Disclosure of Patent Applications, R&D, and Welfare," Papers 30-98, Tel Aviv.
    5. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Dosi, Giovanni & Palagi, Elisa & Roventini, Andrea & Russo, Emanuele, 2023. "Do patents really foster innovation in the pharmaceutical sector? Results from an evolutionary, agent-based model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 564-589.
    7. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The quality factor in patent systems," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1755-1793, December.
    8. Ottoz, Elisabetta & Cugno, Franco, 2011. "Choosing the scope of trade secret law when secrets complement patents," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 219-227.
    9. Wright, Donald J., 1999. "Optimal patent breadth and length with costly imitation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 419-436, April.
    10. Cerqueti, Roy & Quaranta, Anna Grazia & Ventura, Marco, 2016. "Innovation, imitation and policy inaction," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 22-30.
    11. Arijit Mukherjee, 2017. "Patent Protection and R&D with Endogenous Market Structure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 220-234, March.
    12. Malte Mosel, 2011. "Big patents, small secrets: how firms protect inventions when R&D outcome is heterogeneous," Working Papers 105, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    13. Jeon, Haejun, 2015. "Patent infringement, litigation, and settlement," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 99-111.
    14. Yang, Xuebing, 2013. "Horizontal inventive step and international protection of intellectual property," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 338-355.
    15. Leiva Bertran, Fernando J. & Turner, John L., 2017. "Welfare-optimal patent royalties when imitation is costly," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 457-475.
    16. Wright, Brian D. & Pardey, Philip G. & Nottenburg, Carol & Koo, Bonwoo, 2007. "Agricultural Innovation: Investments and Incentives," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 48, pages 2533-2603, Elsevier.
    17. Schubert, Stefanie & Jost, Peter-J., 2015. "Beat the gun - protection against zero-profit imitation," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113045, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Yuan, Michael Y., 2005. "Does decrease in copying cost support copyright term extension?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 471-494, October.
    19. Takalo, Tuomas & Kanniainen, Vesa, 2000. "Do patents slow down technological progress?: Real options in research, patenting, and market introduction," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(7), pages 1105-1127, October.
    20. Eric Budish & Benjamin Roin & Heidi Williams, 2013. "Do fixed patent terms distort innovation? Evidence from cancer clinical trials," Discussion Papers 13-001, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ecinnt:v:25:y:2016:i:8:p:821-851. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GEIN20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.